Click for next page ( 41


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 40
40 Questionnaire Distribution and Analysis In spite of the challenges of obtaining a robust survey sample and the acknowledged unrepresentativeness of the Two CMV trade associations, the Truckload Carriers Asso- sample in relation to all safety managers, the 69 responses ciation (TCA) and the Bus Industry Safety Council (BISC), provided sufficient data for analysis as well as many useful assisted the study by distributing paper survey forms for comments. In addition, a number of respondents volunteered this project and MC-22 (Safety Management in Small Motor for follow-up structured interviews. Carriers) at national meetings. The National Private Truck Council (NPTC) assisted the effort by e-mailing the online Follow-Up Structured Interviews survey solicitation to its Safety Council members with its endorsement. The last question of the safety manager survey form asked respondents if they would be interested in participating in Paper surveys were formatted on a single front-and-back a paid follow-up interview to discuss innovative fleet prac- sheet where answer choices were circled or penciled in. At tices. The question included the assurance, "Responses will the TCA meeting, approximately 100 survey forms (for each be confidential; no interviewees or carriers will be identified of the two projects) were distributed, and 20 were returned. unless desired." The key purpose of the interviews was to Two other truck forms were obtained through personal con- gather information and opinions for project case study write- tacts. At the BISC meeting, approximately 50 forms were ups. If respondents did volunteer, and had a relatively large distributed, and 26 were returned. At the latter, meeting number of "yes" responses under carrier practices (indicative attendees included a significant proportion of non-safety of more developed driver hiring systems), they were con- managers (e.g., government officials, trade association offi- tacted to schedule an interview. These interviews covered cials, vendors, consultants) for whom the survey was not both this project and MC-22. A total of 20 respondents were intended. The exact number of carrier safety managers in contacted, usually both by e-mail and by phone, of whom 10 the room is not known. agreed to participate. These 10 provided substantial informa- tion on innovative carrier approaches and practices for hiring An additional effort to obtain safety manager respondents better drivers. This information is presented in chapter five. was made using TRB's online survey service. The online survey had the same content as the paper survey, except for the omission of the first two questions relating to general MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY MANAGER SURVEY crash risk factors. These two questions were "thought ques- RESULTS tions" that required more time for response than others on the survey. They were omitted from the online version to Factors Affecting Safety and Crash Risk streamline the survey and perhaps increase response rates. Questions 1 and 2 addressed factors affecting safety and E-mail requests were sent to 105 respondents believed to crash risk. These were also the first two questions of the be current motor carrier safety managers based on their busi- MC-22 survey, as the two questions were pertinent to both ness cards and contact information gathered at various recent studies. The same five choices were presented in each. Ques- motor carrier safety conferences. An additional solicitation tion 1 asked for the respondent's choice of up to two factors was sent from an NPTC official to NPTC Safety Council having the greatest effect, whereas Question 2 asked for the members. Twenty-one people took the online survey, which one factor with the least effect. Table 3 presents responses. brought the total safety manager survey sample to 69. Note that Questions 1 and 2 were omitted from the online version of the survey in order to reduce survey length and Paper survey answers were entered into an Excel spread- increase response rates. sheet for analysis. Online survey tabulations were generated and added to the Excel sheet totals. As expected, choices for the two opposite questions (greatest and least) were more or less inversely related. This experience suggests that both methods are viable. Driver-related choices (a) and (b) were regarded as having Handing out paper surveys at trade association meetings the greatest effect on crash risk. The other three choices with the support of the organizers likely yields a higher (vehicle, roadway, and weather) were all regarded as having return than sending e-mail solicitations. Carrier officials much smaller effects. Choice (a) has the greatest relevance to are often the targets of product marketing and other promo- driver selection, because driver selection procedures attempt tions, and thus may tend to be wary of responding to external to discern persistent personal traits predictive of crash risk. e-mails in general. They may have confidentiality concerns, Both (a) and (c) are fundamentally driver assessment activi- even if confidentiality statements are prominent in survey ties, whereas the other three choices are primarily behavior materials. Walonick (2010) provides a more extensive dis- change interventions. Figure 11 presents a histogram of the cussion of the difficulties of obtaining survey data from vari- safety manager Question 1 "Most" votes for the five crash ous respondent groups. risk factor categories.

OCR for page 40
41 preparation and (e) rewards/discipline were rated as having TABLE 3 relatively low importance. Figure 12 presents a histogram SAFETY MANAGER RESPONSES RELATING TO FACTORS AFFECTING SAFETY AND CRASH RISK of the safety manager Question 3 "Most" votes for the five types of carrier practices. (1) Factors Affecting Safety and Crash Risk: Consider (1) (2) the entire fleet of North American commercial vehicles Most Least (trucks and buses). Across all these drivers and vehicles, TABLE 4 which factors have the greatest association with crash risk? Pick up to two of the factors below which, in your SAFETY MANAGER RESPONSES RELATING TO GENERAL opinion, have the greatest association with crash risk. CARRIER PRACTICES (2) In your opinion, which one factor has the least asso- (3) Most Important Carrier Practices: All elements of (3) (4) ciation with crash risk? driver training and companies' safety management Most Least (a) Enduring/long-term driver traits (e.g., age, physical 29 5 practices are important, but some may be more impor- abilities, medical conditions, personality, behavioral tant than others. Pick up to two of the carrier practices history) below which, in your opinion, have the greatest effect on drivers' safety behaviors and safety records. (4) In (b) Temporary driver states (e.g., moods, daily circadian 29 4 your opinion, which one practice has the least effect on rhythms, effects of recent sleep, effects of recent food driver safety outcomes? and fluids, effects of environmental conditions in cab) (a) Driver preparation; pre-hire CMV driving training 14 22 (c) Vehicle characteristics (e.g., configuration, safety 7 11 and testing (e.g., basic school training and CDL equipment, load) and mechanical condition (e.g., testing) brakes, tires) (b) Driver selection and hiring; company driver recruit- 34 4 (d) Roadway characteristics and traffic conditions (e.g., 9 15 ing, screening, selection, and hiring (include both man- undivided vs. divided highways, construction zones, datory and voluntary hiring practices) traffic density, speed limits, lane restrictions) (c) Company communications to drivers; driver orien- 23 9 (e) Weather and roadway surface conditions (e.g., wet 10 9 tation, finishing, safety meetings, refresher training, vs. dry, road surface friction, visibility, wind) policy announcements, safety reminders Total Responses: 84 44 (d) Driver evaluation; company monitoring and evalua- 38 2 tion of individual drivers (e.g., violation and incident tracking, ride-alongs, covert observations of driving, onboard computer monitoring) (e) Company rewards and discipline (e.g., incentives, 11 24 feedback, recognition, letters (both commendations and reprimands), bonuses, pay increases/decreases, other consequences imposed by management) Total Responses: 120 61 FIGURE 11 Safety manager "most" votes for the five crash risk factor categories. Most Important Carrier Practices FIGURE 12 Safety manager "most" votes for the five types of Questions 3 and 4, and all subsequent questions, were carrier practices. included on both the paper and online versions of the survey. Questions 3 and 4 addressed the importance of five different The tabulations indicate that respondents regarded driver areas of carrier safety management. The same five choices traits as having paramount importance in relation to risk, were presented in each. Question 3 asked for the respondent's and carrier practices to assess driver traits and behaviors choice of up to two practices having the greatest importance, to be the most important carrier safety practices. These whereas Question 2 asked for the one practice with the least findings are a testimony to the importance of the topics importance. Table 4 presents responses. addressed in this study. Again, choices for the two opposite questions (greatest Driver Personal Characteristics and least) were more or less inversely related. Choice (d) driver evaluation was rated overall as most important, fol- Questions 516 presented 12 driver personal traits or other lowed by choice (b) driver selection. Selection and evalua- characteristics and asked respondents to rate the association tion are related in that both are forms of driver assessment of each with crash risk on a five-point Likert scale, with the aimed at identifying good and bad drivers. Choice (a) driver following instructions:

OCR for page 40
42 Driver Personal/Psychological Traits a personality trait is generally beneficial to safety, as these individuals tend to be non-sensation-seeking and generally What driver characteristics are most associated conservative in their behaviors. with risk? In general and across all drivers, HOW STRONG IS THE ASSOCIATION of each of these per- Hiring Practices and Tools sonal characteristics with DRIVER CRASH RISK? 1 = Little or no association. 5 = Very high association. Questions 1729 presented 13 carrier practices and first Choose one number for each. If you are unsure or asked respondents to state whether or not they regularly have no opinion, leave it blank. used the practice (yes or no). Respondents answering "yes" on a question were then asked to rate the effectiveness of The five Likert scale choices were as follows: the practice on a five-point Likert scale, with the following instructions: 1. Little or No Association Which Driver Hiring Practices and Tools Do You 2. Some Association Regularly Use to Select Safe Drivers? 3. Moderate Association For each of the hiring practices below, please circle yes or no as to whether your organization uses the practice. 4. Strong Association If yes, rate the effectiveness of the method using the 15 scale provided. If no, leave the ratings blank. 5. Very Strong Association. The five Likert scale choices were as follows: Table 5 provides the number of responses for each choice, the total number of responses (N ), and the weighted arith- 1. Highly Ineffective metic average or mean of responses (Avg.). Averages are rounded to the nearest tenth. 2. Ineffective Three personal traits received average Likert scale rat- 3. Not Sure/Neutral ings of more than 4.0: aggressive personality, risk-taking personality, and poor vehicle handling. Two received ratings 4. Effective of less than 3.0: introverted/unsociable and poor English lan- guage skills. Safety manager ratings for personality traits 5. Highly Effective. were generally consistent with research findings relating to individual differences discussed in chapter two. For exam- Table 6 provides the number of respondents reporting using ple, aggressiveness/hostility has a strong relation to crash each practice. Table 7 shows the effectiveness ratings given by and other accident risk. At the other extreme, introversion as users of the practice. Nonusers were instructed to leave these TABLE 5 SAFETY MANAGER LIKERT SCALE RATINGS FOR ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CRASH RISK Rating or Statistic: Personal Trait 1 2 3 4 5 N Avg. (5) Aggressive personality 2 4 5 25 33 69 4.2 (6) Risk-taking personality 0 2 2 28 37 69 4.4 (7) Dishonest/untrustworthy 3 4 12 33 16 68 3.8 (8) Introverted/unsociable 19 23 17 7 1 67 2.2 (9) Low intelligence/mental abilities 5 13 28 17 5 68 3.1 (10) Poor English language skills 14 16 19 14 3 66 2.6 (11) Unhappy/personal problems 0 5 14 39 11 69 3.8 (12) Financial problems/in debt 0 12 16 27 12 67 3.6 (13) Dissatisfied with driver job/profession 0 6 20 28 14 68 3.7 (14) Poor general physical health 2 4 23 29 11 69 3.6 (15) Overweight/obese 6 13 22 18 9 68 3.2 (16) Poor vehicle handling (e.g., backing, parking) 0 1 7 23 38 69 4.4

OCR for page 40
43 items blank or, in the online version, were not presented with Respondents used an average of 6.1 of the 13 practices the questions. Statistics provided include the number for each listed. The most frequently used were road tests, range Likert scale choice, the total number of responses (N ), and tests, and checking criminal records. The least frequently the weighted arithmetic average or mean of responses (Avg.). used were computer-based dynamic tests, mental abil- Averages are rounded to the nearest tenth. ity tests, and English language tests. Hiring practices receiving the most favorable ratings included the road and TABLE 6 range tests, computer-based dynamic tests (though used and rated by only seven respondents), personality ques- SAFETY MANAGER RESPONDENT USE OF HIRING PRACTICE/TOOL tionnaires, and questionnaires about driving behaviors. Checking credit history and rating received the lowest Rating or Statistic: Yes No N average rating. Driver Hiring Practice/Tool (17) Give on-road driving test 67 1 68 On paper forms, Question 30 in this section was a "write- (18) Range/yard maneuvering test (e.g., backing, 59 9 68 in" item where respondents could write in another hiring parking) practice and rate it. Few respondents answered this question. (19) Standardized interview (set list of questions) 44 23 67 Two respondents mentioned physical tests given to applicants (20) Check criminal record 63 4 67 relating to job requirements like loading and unloading. (21) Check credit history and rating 20 46 66 (22) Determine likely safety belt use (by observa- 41 24 65 Additional Questions tion, interview, questionnaire, etc.) (23) General medical history questionnaire 43 22 65 Question 31 asked respondents if they planned to use the new FMCSA PSP. Answers were as follows: Yes (45), No (24) Mental ability test (e.g., math, reasoning) 10 55 65 (5), and Not Sure (15). Thus, the PSP will become a standard (25) English language test 12 54 66 procedure for most carriers participating in the survey. (26) Any computer-based dynamic performance 7 59 66 test (e.g., hand-eye coordination, tracking) Question 32 asked respondents if they had any comments (27) Job satisfaction or job choice questionnaire 16 49 65 on the previous questions (or any related issue). Few com- (28) Personality questionnaire (e.g., aggressive- 21 43 64 ments were made. One respondent believed that a variety of ness, risk-taking, attitudes) driver personality characteristics "comes with the territory" (29) Questionnaire about driving behaviors (e.g., 19 45 64 and that, therefore, the primary focus should be on driving following distances, turn signal use) skills and behaviors. TABLE 7 SAFETY MANAGER LIKERT SCALE RATINGS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF HIRING PRACTICE/TOOL Rating or Statistic: Driver Hiring Practice/Tool 1 2 3 4 5 N Avg. (17) Give on-road driving test 0 0 5 44 18 67 4.2 (18) Range/yard maneuvering test (e.g., backing, 0 0 2 39 18 59 4.3 parking) (19) Standardized interview (set list of questions) 0 4 13 24 4 45 3.6 (20) Check criminal record 2 2 15 34 10 63 3.8 (21) Check credit history and rating 3 2 7 6 2 20 3.1 (22) Determine likely safety belt use (by observa- 2 1 14 19 6 42 3.6 tion, interview, questionnaire, etc.) (23) General medical history questionnaire 0 0 15 18 9 42 3.9 (24) Mental ability test (e.g., math, reasoning) 0 2 3 5 1 11 3.5 (25) English language test 0 1 3 7 2 13 3.8 (26) Any computer-based dynamic performance test 0 0 1 3 3 7 4.3 (e.g., hand-eye coordination, tracking) (27) Job satisfaction or job choice questionnaire 0 0 8 7 1 16 3.6 (28) Personality questionnaire (e.g., aggressiveness, 0 0 2 11 7 20 4.3 risk-taking, attitudes) (29) Questionnaire about driving behaviors (e.g., 0 1 0 13 6 20 4.2 following distances, turn signal use)